Mastered by machines

Moral: Wherein we consider that the sirens related to the big chimera just might have the purpose of helping the interlopers to hide the fact that the shell-games are stacked more in their favor, via computation, than we would like to consider.

---

Sorry state of affairs, folks.

We need to thank the USA Today for this look at what has been put on us as a yoke by the best and brightest.

Pure idiocy. All this under the name of a 'market' driven economy. Give me a break (we need to reclaim the lessons from Adam).

Some of the real founders are rolling over in their graves.

Remarks:

03/16/2015 -- Let them eat cake.

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

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.

02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

08/30/2010 -- The 'chimera' need some attention.

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.

07/25/2010 -- Not run into the ground by machines so much as by the antics of those who use the distraction of complexity to cover their malfeasance'd purposes. You see, some always use advances in technology (and knowledge, in general) as a means to obtain gain. Just taking that tact is questionable ethically, but business has adopted the jungle metaphor (albeit, without real foundation for this choice). Hence, some justification for twisting new situations for means of gains probably can be found; Lord knows, too, that some adore those who have massive collections of wealth. Some of those who bought into the one known bad guy (ah, AIG was probably full of wrongful thinking if truth be known), namely Made-off, and his game did so because they were told that they were joining an exclusive and privileged group. The solution will rest on a better foundation that goes beyond gaming and money'd politicos.

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.

07/11/2010 -- Every which way that we look, are there not oops?

Modified: 03/16/2015

Harvard, ..., II

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

--

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remarks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

02/24/2011 -- People matter.

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

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

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

Modified: 05/08/2014

With friends like this ...

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

---

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

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

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

See the Ideological Errors of Capitalism, for further discussion.

Remarks:

12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

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

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

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

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

Modified: 12/15/2012

Harvard, value and quality I

Moral: Wherein we look at a current situation and argue that the best let us down.

---

How exactly did these people let us down? What are we to do about it?

Well, we can look at the issues. To do so means that we are going to have to go back to the beginning, 1636, and come forward. But, let's set the stage first. Subsequent posts will carry the discussion forward.

--- Foreword:

In an earlier post, while talking about how Adam Smith's ideas (we need a relook) seem to lead to gravy trains and salivation (definition of a politico being, he/she who salivates when a buck is passed beneath the nose), we mentioned Naisbitt's book in which he uses early USA history to characterize some of China's future. Say what?

So, that conceptual view out of Harvard motivated a long-needed look at what went down here (on this side) with the onset of emigres from across the pond coming over. And, where else is there more opinion offered about the foundations of the USA than that related to New England?

Well, folks, it turns out that we have a 'real' example to offer, namely an oft-overlooked Old Planter. But, we'll be getting to that later.

You see, Harvard is right across the river(s) from where the earlier actions took place, and, when one considers the (d)evolution of Harvard (say, as captured here by wiki editors -- see Remarks, 08/13/2011), the institution is archetypal, and much more, in very many ways; some of these are very much apropos to the discussions that will be needed (future posts).

As well, Harvard has stressed elitism (see wiki), at times, which may be natural given its start as God's favorite. Now, is not hubris one characteristic of the elite? And, does not any engineer (yes, as in MIT) worth his or her salt know that nature rules us not the other way around?

We are at a time when the wheels (economically, politically, ...) seem to be spinning. Where is the grip going to come from? Ah, the lessons of New England have the answer to that, as we hope to show (perhaps, we can even use some of that learned from Salem's tribulations to which, by the way, Harvardites contributed early).

Now, to show that we have to deal with finance too, let's continue with Harvard. During the times that elitism took control, the school was rich by any standard. For one thing, 'rich' referred to things dealing with lucre rather than, say, 'rich in spirit' as one would expect given all those Church of England brilliant lights who were involved with the institution's start. Yes, we have to ask, was Harvard a 'city on the hill' that was of unparalleled benefit to humankind?

Well, those things were 150 years ago (see Remarks, 08/13/2011). What about now? Just a couple of years ago, Harvard bragged about their bounty's (what's it called? endowment?) increases from playing financial games and the consequential immense proportions. In fact, they paid some dude outrageous sums for his efforts (ignoring the possible besmirching of the reputation). Then, it wasn't long, and we saw Harvard (and many other schools) crying poor (toxic shockandawe). Who, of a mature mind, would not ask, did not 'you idiots' get what you deserved?

Then, about the same time, the students (bless their hearts) were arguing with the big pockets about the fact that lowly Harvard workers could not sustain themselves decently with their wages.

We could go on but will not. However, consider this: the old guy mentioned above may be more of the 'backbone' of this country than any glib scholar and spewer of words (God, the verbosity in those messages to/fro London - the Church must have selected for this trait in their upper class) that grabs glory and pockets of bucks. It is this backbone, as infrastructure, that we have caused to be 'out-housed' and hollowed out, for the sole benefit of lining the pockets of the few, mostly the elite.

--- Word:

And so, we find that we will have to deal these concepts, namely value, quality, and near-zero.

A couple of days ago, in relation to Toyota's dilemma, a professor (UChi) said that Toyota may have gone too far after value while allowing quality less focus. You see, some think that these have some type of reciprocal relationship.

Ah? Was not the professor talking some notion of 'value' that most likely goes back to the Harvard Business School? How did this happen? That it did is one of the arguments for bringing 'near-zero' into play in discussing how to resolve these issues. You see, 'quality' is of value to all parties concerned, especially when one looks at the commonweal.

Oh, what is the commonweal? Well, those at Harvard ought not have to ask that question. That some may do so ought to give us pause (as ought a whole bunch of things). And, whose 'commonweal' are we to consider?

Well, in the case of Toyota, it would be global. However, it would include all sorts of parties, even pedestrians who may unluckily get in front of an auto that has a stuck accelerator.

Aside: That remark refers to those people who while using their feet increasingly meet up with autos that are running on our streets with no 'mind' in charge, rather we have a zombie sitting where a human ought to be.

Does it not look as if we need to have another go around about value, especially when we consider the various roles and responsibilities involved? That is one intention here, yet the problems of determining value, no matter the type, will remain, especially given that the genie is out of the bottle (in many ways).

Again, pointing to Harvard, the operational stance that we need, with its scientific and technological basis, will require some type of practical support out of the academic framework.

What will this be? Do we know? Good questions, for another day.

There are some major themes to bring up: innumeracy does not equate idiocy (very important), ungrounded genius is more stupid than well-founded normality, ... (it could be a long list, however let's, again, cut it short).

--- Afterword:

As we look at operational issues related to the themes here, one assessment of quality applies to people, their talents, and the potentials. Oh, we know, there are many open issues involved here, yet we will need human talent to control the genie.

Why bring up the old guy who was successful in bringing in, and raising, a family despite the inherent troubles and all of the dangers (natural, social, political)? We expect that we'll be addressing some things like the absence of the lordly prince syndrome among other things. That is, there is a certain effectiveness which accompanies success.

And, running off after abstracted chimeras as we have seen the past decade, or so, is not effective for the commonweal. Perhaps, someone in Harvard has already figured this out. Do I see shades of Cotton Mather here (kidding, of course)?

You see, the first 150 years of Harvard were in support of spreading the Christian faith (within a certain type of framework) across the land and elsewhere (again, see wiki's description). During the 1700s, the class size was such that thousands graduated with an flavored academic experience.

After secularization showed up, perhaps, graduates were more productive, meaning being able to play roles beyond those that are scarce in number. In fact, a point of pride for the institution is the number of graduates who have been recognized (43 Nobel laureates).

Again, one might ask why Harvard? Well, a few reasons were given above. Consider this, though. Is it not out of Harvard Business School that we got the emphasis on securitization, short-term profit focus, globalization/colonization, and more (we can build a real long list - perhaps should)? Oh, business schools, in general, one might say. Well, where is the leadership toward the better (please, not more rational, unless you mean non-insane) side of things that one might expect of Harvard?

So many questions, but we'll persist. Hasta la vista.

Remarks:

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

08/15/2013 -- Nice viewpoint. Farce, indeed (chimera). Buyers and sellers are Investors (sometimes). Many elites see their gifts as carte blanche to screw over those less gifted (in essence, a main cause of the continual strife that humans face -- Harvard, at one time, may have had an ethical edge - can it get it back?). Who is the fairest of the elite, so to speak? For sustainability to come about, those of the highest quality need to be of the service mentality (yes, perhaps we could find someone at Harvard Divinity to explain this to the gifted in their neighborhood). Service? Try military without being of the O-series, for instance. But, a national service would allow many types of contributions. Foreigners? Yes, they would have to do it to boot.

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

05/14/2013 -- Still the second most-read article (post). Ought to bring this up to date. As we see with Gauss' view of things, there is a spread around what might be termed the mean. Depending upon the domain, we'll be able to put people into categories according to this way of looking at things (remember, it's not intrinsically based, okay?). If we're looking at accumulations (depth of asset base or a myriad of other ways),    we have to have those on either side of the mean. No one, of the embodied type, wants to know the left most (however, the Creator does). The rightmost? Most aspire to this. Not all (and, Harvard types could talk to this old guy about that -- we'll go back to the beginning and before). Most will only dream of being on that side of things. Those there, mostly, think it's due them (ah, yes). ... Let's stop that and turn the table a little. One characteristic of those enjoying admittance is scoring highly on tests which is indicative of various abilities that we seem to think of as important. Yes, some correlation does come about. Are there failures of those types (yes, indeed, the problem is that many times they bring down a whole bunch of lesser folk into their turmoil - ah, the way of the world?). Too, the testing stresses, many time, numeric abilities. You know, such insights (many times, not wise at all) has led us (mankind, okay?) down perdition-laden paths where we overlay that viewpoint (yes, thanks to Carl Friedrich and many more) on our being (Harvard-ites ought to know of this; I would bet that many do not) to the extent of suffocation and worse. ... So, we're May, 2013. Ben has a 15K DOW as an accomplishment (congratulations are in order). But, he has not much about unwinding (except for thinking), though we've asked for this for years now. Guess what? We're back to the heavy leveraging idiocy.

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

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

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

08/13/2011 -- See the Feb 2010 version of the page in order to see the referenced section which disappeared on 12 May 2010. The missing section (Elitism) had been added on 24 Jan 2010. It consisted of earlier material, but the newer, historic organization made the text stand out. The missing text does relate that huge 'endowment' stature was almost expected.

08/13/2011 -- See Cambridge non-commoners.

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

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

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

11/11/2010 -- Harvard II, Ca-ital-sino, Adam again

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

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

02/19/2010 -- As said earlier, there will be coming posts related to this theme. In the meantime, start to look at the New England experience and what it means now. Of course, we already know the themes, such as computation's genie and control of this force, mathematization's diminution of mankind, the necessity for Harvard to step up to its role, and much more.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

02/09/2010 -- We need to retrain the driving brain.

02/06/2010 -- Let's see, we can start to count the ways. Take term limits, for instance, which definitely are an issue. In some cases, we have 'lordly princes' who get into office and sit there, for their own glorification (and the regal perks). Then, they're more influenced by lobbyists throwing around money (causing salivation) than by their own constituents.

Now, you have to give these people some credit. They do flummox the public into a continued vote. So, to go into that phenomenon is a whole other story.

Of course, these dynamics (independence/freedom versus cronyism - you see, there is probably a better way to characterize this, as it's a framework that adjusts by whatever basis it sits on) go way back, as said above (all the way to Plimouth and Cape Ann). It's natural that Harvard ought to be the center for a more full understanding of these issues (which would mean that money would be of less 'value' to you guys/gals than is truth). Where is such a study?

On a similar note, academic institutions breed something similar. How? What is there for support of the autodidact, in the sense of not being mentored? Of course, in this case, as we see in general, we have to maintain (after first attaining) a balance between the individual and the public good. How would an autodidact be rated? Institutions have their credentials and certifications. Why bring it up?

The whole notion of innumeracy not being idiocy needs to be looked at. Of course, Harvard, via Howard Gardner, may have already started to address these issues (and their conflicts).

Too, no one but John Galt is mentor-less. The issue is more, who does one select as mentor? For most people, parents are generally the first. There are other involuntary, for the autodidact, mentors throughout one's life. The problem is, as we see from early New England, can a social setting allow autodidacts? Actually, we have to ask if allowing autodidacts is, by necessity, disruptive?

The thing of the web is that expression can be offered, within legal limits, that is not under some mark of approval (imprimatur).

Modified: 06/14/2014

Ill-begotten gains

Moral: Wherein we consider the gains of capitalists as more ill-begotten than otherwise (and jaw-bone a little).

---

Ill-begotten, in what sense? We'll get to that. Last time, we looked at ideological issues related to capitalism. Let's continue along one vein.

Given the concept of near-zero, we can see that gains, such as many on Wall Street and their hanger-ons have made the past year (supported by Ben's largess), do not have any rational support. These have come at the expense of the taxpayers and Main Street.

We have been hollowed out, said one author (Harold Meyerson, Wash Post). Actually, is it not more that we lost our backbone? Somehow, our best-and-brightest have been given the leeway to lead us to paths of perdition, along which most happily went. To where? To our demise, leaving China, and others, with the upper hand.

Thanks, you jerks (yes, as in the third-derivative). Okay, let's change the tone to that which is more mature.

Earlier, we said that no train was leaving the station. Of course, since then, some have continued to find what they call 'gains' via equity. Let's forget commodities, at the moment, as many of those have real substance behind them, albeit that interlopers abound across many levels who stack cards in their favor.

Charlatans have been allowed to sustain a casino that sucks us dry. Gosh, thanks, politicos. By the way, where are the term limits that we really need to get the Main streeters their chance to serve the country? Most of the politicos actually just like to salivate when a buck is passed beneath their nose.

Except, Mr Obama seems to be coming around, finally. We ought to have nationalized the banks last year, kicked out the best-and-brightest, and allowed Main streeters to have more say. We'll see how much success Mr Obama can have, since the Ayn Rand'ers seem to have ad infinitum ways to continue to muck things up.

Bonuses, from a game funded by taxpayers, many of whom have been economically enslaved this past decade, are not ill begotten?

Remarks:

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

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

01/20/2013 -- What ought to be the spirit of the thing?

12/13/2012 -- Don't know how long this page will be there, Daily Ticker. But, when I looked, 69% had said 'no' (hurt rather than helped) as to whether Ben has helped.

03/29/2012 -- Ben is doing a series of four lectures on his, and the FED's, role.

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

10/12/2011 -- If the OWS wants specifics, there are plenty to list, such as this one. We can only resolve this with an amendment (like the 13th) for the rights of workers (folks, employment is not unlike indentured servitude in many ways) plus a Magna Carta equivalent to give the big pants (egos) something to think about. 09/20/2011 -- This will be used in our constructive effort.

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

05/09/2011 -- Savers are suckers?

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background. Too, tranche and trash. 04/01/2011 -- The last man wants the old days back. 02/01/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

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

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

01/22/2010 -- Bankers IV. Plus, Lordly Prince.

01/19/2010 -- Gosh, Ben, why did you have to sack the savers? Oh, I know, the banks (and their supposed best-and-brightest) mean more to you than do we, the lowly citizens and taxpayers. Have you considered our lot? I go into the bank (it's a big one whose big guy is on the list of rogues -your friends?) to see what they will give me for some money. Oh! Less than 1%. Who would have thunk it, Ben? Look, at the same time, they've made oodles and are looking to payout big bucks to their workers. What? Ought not some of that go to account holders? Others say to pay the shareholders. Well, that is a balance that your position is supposed to help. From the looks of it, your bias is toward those who want the train to nowhere. From where I sit, your stance is not only one-sided, it's actually counter to the benefit of those who are dependent upon your actions (the larger group (cardinality), big guy, not those (larger in the fat cat sense) of the ilk who think that their money gaming is the essence of reality). Solution? Look at the problem of fiat money, argue for your position to be modified, then work for some realness behind things that are valued by what is called 'money' (many meanings, I know).

01/17/2010 -- Simon Johnson has it right.

Modified: 07/22/2015

Grandsons of Samuelson

Moral: Wherein, we remember Paul Anthony Samuelson, the Nobel-winning, and highly influential, Economist.

---

Business Week (12/26/09 & 1/4/10) asks, 'did the followers go astray?' which references a forthcoming paper, Sins of the Sons of Samuelson (PDF at Wellesley, David Colander and Casey Rothschild).

As the adage goes (Biblical origin), the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons. Well, hopefully, the next generation can take a re-look, even if it is done autodidact'dly.

It has been said before that we're suffering from the over-exuberances that computational prowess brought forth and sustained over the last part of the 20th and the early part of the 21st centuries. Perhaps, we can now take an assessment and be a little wiser going forward (idiocies abound, even those of a highly mundane nature). And, it's not an issue of which side of the pond anymore with the rising of those over the bigger pond being a much larger factor.

In this case, perhaps, we can exonerate Mr. Samuelson and blame the followers. Computation is much different than in his day. That Quants have run wild is only loosely associated with his work.

He, though, is one who worked to get the genie out of the bottle. Can we get it back under control?

Well, we'll continue to consider these types of question, especially as we all share the pains when the economy is malfease'd.

Remarks:   Modified: 01/15/2015

12/29/2009 -- Is the uber-Nerd a son? Also, Paul Krugman says that the 00s were a big zero; well, let's introduce him to near zero. The sons need to realize that gains must have a substantial basis, as in being 'real' and beyond mere model-mania.12/15/2012 -- Coase, on the subject.

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

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

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

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

05/28/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Avatars, too.

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

12/03/2013 -- In a Fortune talk with Larry Summers, there is a mention that he is a nephew of Samuelson. So, that is great to know, as it'll allow some discussion of gene/meme issues (actually, the blogger has been working this topic in another milieu; Ben's thoughts on the failings of meritocracy ought to bring it back to fore here). Too, Larry was in charge when the Glass-Steagall restrictions were relaxed so that the big boys could then play wildly and mess up our banking system. Thanks, Larry. Good to know that he was one of the players in that bad choice. You see, the pusher of rationality had a bit of irrationality; well, was that not a sign of the times?

12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. He's helped the chimera unfold in unhealthy ways. He could, at least, say a mea culpa.

02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.

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

Our basis

Moral: Wherein, we see that humans can differ quite a bit as we can observe by looking at the wide variety of human opinions. There are many explanations possible.

---

Yet, at the basis for human endeavors, such as that which economics claims as its domain, there is consciousness that has defied any definition via scientific means. Oh yes, there are plenty of theories and wishes. The fact is, folks, that the issue is open and will remain so (t-issue). We can gather the facts as we see them, within our neuropeptidergic limitations and attempt understanding. Too, the operationalistic methods can say 'who cares?' and proceed almost nonchalantly. From this, we get workable methods, many times, of which none ever achieves the silver bullet status (not for very long, that is, and why this need?).

So, we can't have some nice theory about rational agents when the underlying basis is unknown (essentially underdetermined, let's say). That is, any constructionist's model ought to have some sound basis, unless incompleteness is accepted as the reality.

That is one reason why the law comes into play so strongly as mathematics has no hold on the overall perspective. Oh yes, again, we see phenomenal advances, yet do not many of these produce more negative side-effects than benefits? That is the reality behind near-zero, in a sense. We have never had a true accounting.

The clever, and we ought to give them some credit for this (tongue-in-cheek, folks - ah, is this risk management or tranching?), have excelled at keeping themselves from having to endure the consequences related to bad side-effects. Think about it. For example, all sorts of modern methods (lean, etc.) can push problems out to sub-contractors (be it by globalization, in some cases, or otherwise).

What are we to do? Well, it does turn out that the computational can be a tool for intelligence and coherency, if we use it correctly. In terms of the context of this blog, 'correctly' would entail all sorts of things, some of which the financiers, and the best-and-brightest, may find antithetical to their interests.

These themes will continue.

Aside 1: As a reminder, there are three blogs using a different viewpoint. Some issues, such as this one, seem to relate across these viewpoints. Hence, look for more material on truth engineering and 7oops7, as the discussion continues.

Aside 2: One thing that will come to fore is that the advance of abstraction in the recent centuries has had both a good and a bad side. We can use the world/earth dual for a brief explanation. Expect that this topic will be more thoroughly covered as we go along here. So, we know that the earth is round (the sphere is a close approximation, yet precise measurement will detail lopsidedness) in this day and age when the Space Station runs around the earth on a fairly short cycle, comparatively. But, too, we know that the world is flat, essentially is it so when one overlays reality with insights from Hilbert (yes, analog of the Hilbert space). Though, since Da Vinci, we've known about perspective and vanishing lines, within the measure on any person, or personal interactions, we have a very large, and orthogonal space. Even relativity didn't get rid of xyz and time. Wait, what gives here? There are many abstractions that we can superposition over ourselves and our lives. Yet, these are all limiting constructs to what 'being' actually is.

Aside 3: And, folks, what has more being than money? Ah, not so, many will argue. Just conjecture a realm in which money does have more substance than we've thought about (yes, economists limit us), and this realm is only partly computationally supported. Mostly, it's that thing that Ben, and buddies, are trying to inflate. Keynes' notion of animal 'spirits' does not go far enough. So, that realm will be described further.

Remarks:

03/23/2012 -- Renewal of the idea (and related energies) via Cooper and CiE.

02/27/2012 -- This post was a continuation of Our Basis, concerning just how shaky is our perceptual being (from certain views).The 01/01/2012 Remarks (below) points to work by an Eastern European. A recent Atlantic article looks at protozoan influences that may need more of our attention. It's significant that the underlying work was done by a lonely scientist in an Eastern European situation. Western culture has much thanks to offer that part of Europe who bore the brunt of waves of onslaught through the past 1000 years.

01/01/2012 -- Recently ran across the work of Kazimierz Dabrowski. We need to pay more attention to his theory on development. Yes, CEOs (and other takers) as immature (seriously, so). 

08/03/2011 -- The relationship to economics is important.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background.

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).

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

01/06/2010 -- Poor Ben, getting grief and criticism.

12/29/2009 -- Time calls Ben an uber-Nerd.

12/28/2009 -- Ben was named the Time Person of the Year. Nice. We can't call him 'King' as we saw with Alan's 'cult of personality' reign.

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

12/08/2009 -- Consider current CEOs in relation to Paul. Not fair? Well, these guys/gals have set themselves upon some supposed plane that is above the rest of us.

12/01/2009 -- The consumer as focus.

Modified: 03/23/2012

Risk and rationality

Moral: Wherein these two concepts play heavily in economics, and finance, in several ways. So, they are worthy of some attention.

---

First, let's look at a couple of recent media offerings. On the print side, today, McClatchy Newspapers provided some words about how gambling laws might help dampen the effects of the games related to derivatives. Earlier, on the tele, I glimpsed an ad for an investing class where the theme was a clever take on the differences in risk taking, that was observed, between male and female students. Now, this latter has been discussed in several forums, but Laura's take is worth a read.

So, we are reminded that 'casino capitalism' has been allowed to become the basis for the economy, for reasons that we'll be looking at in depth. Too, those who may see that near-zero is the reality are pushed aside for several reasons, of which gender is only one.

Both of these topics are extremely important to our future, risk and rationality. About 'risk' we can say a lot, especially that it is inherent in life, to wit, the monies paid by the big boys to manage it. That the idea has been pushed to the limits of rationality needs some discussion.

Somehow, we hear this inane spiel about the rewards going to those who take the risk. Ah, yes (gains go to the pocket; failures are bailed out and mitigated). That nonsense goes back to the argument that getting out of bed is risky. Well, staying in bed is risky, too. Risk, in this sense, ought not be the focus as risk always is there. Okay, perhaps, some notion about managing risk's effects is appropriate, yet, a real accounting of the types of pain is what needs our attention. It has never been done right.

Oh, things are great? Millions are out of work and without any meaningful life? The fat cats bask in their bonuses, even thinking that these are appropriate? And, those working buy junk from China, assuming that they have money? Extremest luxury for the smallest few is accountable as progress in what sense? (a small sampling of thousands of possible questions, by the way)

Economics, in the classical sense, stressed 'rationality' from its beginning. Well, we can, and will, go into the etiology of that notion. For now, just be aware that economics getting biological (to wit, neuroeconomics) portends that some fundamental changes are coming. Too, we are only at the start of the computational influence. There is a whole lot we'll learn, even to the point of getting an appreciation for innumeracy (is not idiocy!).

When one considers ourselves, what is a rational view founded upon? That is, do we really know which neurotransmitter mix is optimal? Is that why we stress the mental IQ and associated performance (hey, isn't that what's behind the best-and-brightest labeling?) measures?

Or, is rationality tied to mathematical prowess (some economists seem to think so)? Well, can that be done on other than a quasi-empirical basis (think borgs)? Oh, are mathematics and its ilk (er, practitioners) any less subject to influences of the neuropeptidergic nature of ourselves than the rest of humanity (think mole hills)?

Well, to be fair, the argument is usually couched in terms of rational self-interest. However, underdetermined-ness is an important concept to consider in this context that is not easily tossed aside.

So much to discuss.

Remarks:

12/06/2013 -- If only Ben would put a shot across the bow. He's helped the chimera unfold in unhealthy ways. He could, at least, say a mea culpa.

03/11/2012 -- We need to update this, especially with a nod to Alan M. Turing.

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

02/10/2010 -- We could probably use the auto (and recent events) as a way to characterize the concepts of the blog. Of course, we have the value versus quality mis-think as part of the problem. Business Week reports that Toyota was asking suppliers for a 10% cut. Well, such scrimping would have an effect, even if it was only in looks. However, cutting into the life of a system may appear smart but, actually, relies on the same unstable basis as does a lot of economic thinking.

12/01/2009 -- The consumer as focus.

11/30/2009 -- Neuropeptidergic limitations are only one consideration for our basis.

Modified: 12/06/2013

The autodidact's role

Moral: Wherein we ask: who is to know? Well, let's take that theme a little further.

---

We can say, within the framework of the US as our rights are defined by the Constitution and its Amendments, we all are. Who is this 'we' referred to here? Well, citizens and residents. Even some elsewhere. Perhaps, everyone, if the real dreams of America were to be entertained.

What does the Title mean? Ah, that is one issue to discuss. The autodidact, essentially, is someone who is self-taught. Examples abound in history, but Eric Hoffer, the longshoreman philosophical writer, is one example.

You know what? Those who serve us in Washington, DC ought to be such. That is, knowledge and truth ought to outweigh money and lobbyists. To be fair, some do try. And, some who lobby actually know what the hell they are talking about.

So, why stress the autodidact's role? Well, everyone, no matter how schooled or learned, can be expert only in their field, or a small set of fields; know any know it alls? Knowing, in this sense, is like a laser light shining in the darkness. It's very focused.

In fact, some would argue that one of the problems of the modern world, especially the dismal science of economics, is that we've succeeded into reducing things to where a whole lot of anything is really nothing. That's a t-issue, by the way. Also, business handling of their employees relates directly to this theme.

The computer has exacerbated the problem since we've learned to accept an expert's opinion; does not the computer have the greatest aura of infallibility in some minds? One might say that mathematics has enjoyed its little aura, to boot.

One of the most learned minds would be he or she who holds a joint MD and PhD degree. You see, the MD is the epitome of a schooling grind that results in maximal decision making in one area, essentially the medical specialty. Then, the PhD, by definition, is indicative of attainment of knowledge in one area or field. Trouble is that these disciplines, and fields, are becoming more and more specialized.

Any PhD, who has to weigh in on something outside his or her expertise, needs to do so as an autodidact. Now, would their self-learned role be superior to some others? Meaning, does knowledgeable-ness leverage to other areas?

Yes, indeed. Better than does the financial leveraging that we saw so rabidly expanding prior to the latest problem.

We're not done yet, as there are other items to touch in regard to this subject. However, here is one comment. It may very well be better for those who face financial decisions to do so as an autodidact, as the financial community has shown its true colors. They are after their own gain, folks, believe it.

Remarks:

02/26/2014 -- Acknowledgements for Lucio Arteaga.

05/14/2013 -- This is the fourth most-read post. Interesting. Eric can serve as a poster boy, of types. Could Jamie learn from this?

01/17/2013 -- One characteristic of the autodidact could be being mentor-less. Rather, we all learn from others. For normal families, one's parents would be the early mentors. Then, take it from there. However, the true autodidact will not see some superior on this planet, and, in that sense, they are iconoclastic as hell, for the most part. Think of it this way. The emperor may have clothes; but, he craps like the rest. Which brings up another point of the autodidact: they are not, typically, unaware that their shite stinks as we see with many who are in power roles (head trips - anyone know what that is?).

01/17/2013 -- Motivated by Rick Bookstaber's post. It's not the PhD or MD that is the epitome, especially not if they use their knowledge to get bulging pockets. I'm now convinced of that (and will say why, over time). Yet, how do we measure knowledge and effectiveness? For one, we need a better understanding of human potential (again, that will be covered). Too, in various collectives, one important one is the firm (Coase is 102 this year). For many, such are enslaving devices. Even, the likes of Jamie is not free from the chains of his (nod to Dylan). Then, we have roles that need certification. Yet, we need free thinkers, too, whatever that is. Engineers, and their roles, are a special breed. Finance? Not so much.

03/08/2012 -- This theme will be looked at further. For one, the MD/PHD is not, by necessity, the best basis. There are others that need to be considered. The issue? People who can see what is what and can think within their own cognitive setup (in other words, they know their 'holes'). I like Chaitin's approach, somewhat.

11/25/2011 -- Due to this characteristic's importance to our future, we'll need to redo this a little. For now, rank and file.

10/17/2011 -- If we're to challenge Harvard on its duty, then we'll need to beef this up. For one, is education only operationally important, measured in bucks? Ah, so much to discuss.

05/24/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Autodidacts have (and will continue to have) a very large role in taming those dynamics that spawn lemons (yes, we need some bankers to step up to the task -- where are the good bankers?).

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

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

12/10/2009 -- More roles include the consumer and the economy.

11/30/2009 -- No one climbs above our neuropeptidergic limitations. From 'Our basis' can grow a whole bunch.

11/10/2009 -- The mountain, and the mole hill, belong to the same range.

11/09/2009 -- One trait of the autodidact is measurable intelligence (discussions will follow). However, working alone also impairs peer review, a fact that needs discussion about resolution.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

10/16/2009 -- 201K -- lt;-- 401K -- gt -- 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

Modified: 02/26/2014

Who is to know?

Moral: Wherein we consider all sorts of claims coming out of the Street and beyond. The bulls are running amok, it seems; those in Chicago are emoting with glee at their take.

---

What's one to think? Some say, to the bulls, watch out. On the other side, some say that the pessimists are wrong. The DOW, it is said, will run way beyond 10,000.

Well, let's start a point of view that says, who cares? That is, equity is way overplayed except for those touting casino capitalism and for those who get their take from the churning.

As well, for any who makes a bunch, near zero says that many, many more lose. Basically, if we looked, we would see that many, many make sacrifices. Trouble is that the noise from the racket spewed out by those who grab mega-ly overshadows what is real.

Then, once we get the mania out of our minds, let's go back to fundamentals and look at what might be what. And, let's take our time. We can go about this without worrying about those hyped up on spin, and such.

We need to go back to see why the interest in capitalism. The WSJ had an op-ed talking about Samuel Johnson's time. Of course, he was an acquaintance of Adam Smith, yet those minds had no way of knowing about the current mess that we (admitting part of the blame, here, just from not watching that many of the idiots did not know about fiduciary duty) have made.

So, we all know that knowing adults want freedom to choose and freedom from worrying about those who want to leech your assets. Too, we all know that committee work can be problematic. Yet, all have played on teams and know that a squad (take any team sport) is more than one person.

We see this notion mentioned by one who worked for Goldman Sachs, yet worried about being true to Ayn Rand. To that latter, we could say, what? From whence is there anything from Ayn Rand that is cut in granite for all to consider outright truth?

Yes, we all know about teaming; most do it except for a few executives (namely, the CEOs who are paragons, in their minds).

So, there will a series of posts related to knowing. It might be worthwhile here to mention that those who really know usually are of an autodidact nature. We'll go into that further.

So, away with the day-to-day, thankfully it's only 5 days a week, exuberanced, or angsted (depending upon the day's results) mindsets. It's hard to believe how much money and time has gone into this whole gaming scheme. But, it is not of enduring consequences to ourselves unless we want it to be.

Actually, getting the sandbox bounded, and controlled, will be one topic for discussion.

Remarks:

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

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.

11/08/2009 -- The gigantic chimera needs proper attention.

11/06/2009 -- There ain't no train, just like there ain't no free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

10/16/2009 -- 201K <-- 401K --> 25601K, this denotes the current financial gaming.

10/13/2009 -- Always timely, a WSJ op-ed (Don't Get Hit by Crash at Finish Line) gives an appropriate message to the theme.

Modified: 08/24/2011

Economic sandbox

Moral: Wherein we consider a sandbox. In several posts (see below list), 'sandbox' has been used to either characterize gaming that is risky (sandboxy) for more than just the players or to denote a better process, using as an analog the role that labs play for the test engineer. That is, filter out the toxic from the secure instruments.

---

Think of it this way. A new plane is seriously tested before people fly the thing. Even the test pilots don't just jump in and take off. Where is there some correspondence to this notion in economics?

What we've seen is creative spawning of instruments as if by necessity. Then, in the past year, we've seen 'shooting from the hip' by some cowboys (right and left, there have been processes changed and adopted, seemingly without caution); too, those in the position to rake in the dough are doing just that; the taxpayers, and savers, are being sacked.

One motivation: describe and establish a mechanism to put the game players where their impact is limited. We do not need this supposed 'creativity' of the best-and-brightest that seems to persist in creating dire consequences for the majority.

So, for starters, let's look at the posts that used 'sandbox' and start this necessary discussion. The following are three groups of links to post with some comment about how it relates to the sandbox imperative. The post are listed from latest to earliest in time.

• Educational Institutions (Sep 09) -- As with engineering and science, these institutions ought to be where sandboxes evolve, not in the for-profit side of business.
• Computation, finance and engineering (Sep 09) -- Even Nobel winners were amiss, big time.
• Spitting in the wind (Sep 09) -- The sandbox would isolate effects until something is proven.

• Roles for schools (Sep 09) -- As mentioned earlier, labs are an accepted fact in institutes of higher learning.
• Modern finance (Oct 08) -- Where did the notion arise that people could play games with other people's money using what are essentially untested processes? Does fiduciary duty mean anything?
• Easy steps (Oct 08) -- Definitely derivatives (other usage) ought to be wrapped with some type of testing constraint. Minsky's notion of speculation leading to ponzi applies here.
• Swarm proof (Sep 08) -- This type of proof, applying the wisdom of the crowd concept, would be interesting in several contexts.
• The times (Sep 08) -- We need to accept our quasi-empirical limits as we apply some notion of testing. How do we agree on these is something to discuss.
• Loops and truth (Feb 08) -- Getting an agreement on limits would help us to try to resolve issues related to the thrill of gaming where consequences go far beyond the player's own health and wealth.

• Cult of me (Jul 09) -- We may already have some sandboxes that are being misused by the 300 lb bullies.
• New type of colonialism (Sep 08) -- Sandboxes could help reduce the large influxes to some pockets, albeit that some of these come about from making bets that pay off (note, near zero allows us to know that the pay off was from pockets that diminish correspondingly).
• Oops as poop (Sep 08) -- Not handling moral hazards leads to an increase in sandboxy ways (where the whole economy is seen as someone's sandbox).
• Oops and more oops (Sep 08) -- We could show that hedging and speculation are natural control mechanisms to some point beyond which the game then is sandboxy and ought to be handled as such.
• Miscellany (Jul 08) -- The sandbox notion applies to control of risky behavior, except that there has not appeared to be an easy way to resolve the issues. However, has any tried the sandbox? Oh yes! Engineering!
• People matters (Mar 08) -- This was the first mention of the sandbox needed to control use of methods that have more potential than their current role of moving monies into a few pockets. After all, how people use their monies can be a type of voting. Allowing such a thing to evolve can be thwarted by the massive flows from the giants (un-level field).

Note: these posts paralleled the unfolding of the madness with several reactions, including from incredulity.

Note: 'sandbox' has found usage in computer security and software development. This usage is apropos to the discussion of an economic sandbox.

Remarks:

01/15/2015 -- This week, this post is getting read. Great! Nice little piece of work (kidding, in part) so many years ago. ... At last, a series that will establish the basis and extensions, as required. We are going to go back to some simple and come forward to the modern, complicated economy. Why? My long chain of ancestors (inherited via Prof. Lucio Arteaga) is one motivation.

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). The issues raised in the article are central to truth engineering's core focus.

10/30/2014 -- Where are we?

10/16/2014 -- Need to get back to this, as the days of the downturn loom. No matter how much the Fed feeds the panhandlers, they will succumb to health issues at some point (when?, how long?, actually, for me, it does not matter, as I am an observer, only, who is one of those interested in building a better pie). The tragedy to all of this? Oodles of hapless folk will be drawn down with the players as their ca-pital-sino sinks. ... Does not have to be. There are better ways.

01/20/2013 -- Perhaps, the sandbox ought to be for play, dirty and otherwise. Which means, of course, outside of the mainstreams that handles things for the folks who care about their economic well-being.

09/14/2012 -- Ben just gave them, the runner amok'ers, the store. 

05/28/2011 -- Lemons problem, dark pools, ... Oh, so much to look at! Avatars, too.

04/03/2011 -- Need to look at some background issues. Sandbox, again.

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

01/27/2011 -- The chimera shines.

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

12/24/2009 -- What would Samuelson think of the concept?

11/29/2009 -- Rick is now with the SEC. Who will engineer (verb)?

10/05/2009 -- Ah, yes, on the behalf of.

09/13/2009 -- Need to pause for a bit, to look at Bookstaber's work.

Modified: 01/15/2015